Pages

Monday, February 27, 2012

On The Wisdom Of Old

A number of years ago, I spent three days in California interviewing with an organization which did religious outreach across various college campuses in Southern California. By the end of the three days my wife and I were offered the opportunity to move to Santa Barbara (which we turned down), then spent a number of months discussing options in Los Angeles before eventually we decided to go our separate ways.

As part of the process, I was asked to talk to various college students of all types and stripes. In particular, I remember a fascinating conversation I had with a religious theology major at UCLA about approaches to life, God, religion, etc. One of the most fascinating parts of the conversation was when I argued that it seems odd to automatically assume that a given approach should be given no credibility no matter how long-standing it is. If anything, the more long-standing a point is, the more thought one should give that approach before moving onto others - yes, it can and should be questioned, but to assume that nobody prior to one's self has asked any of these questions shows a certain sense of ego and complete lack of humility, which would seemingly preclude the ability to make proper judgments down the line. Instead, one should first make sure to fully understand where a line of thought started, how it developed throughout time, and how it reached the point it has before passing any judgment on it. What was most amazing about our conversation was that this approach had never once occurred to nor had it been presented to this obviously intelligent, educated student whom I couldn't have been more than a year or two older than, and he was really taken aback by this. 

This has been coming back to me recently as I watch various debates occur on a variety of topics, from politics to Judaism to life in general. Three good specific examples from the past couple weeks are particularly striking: Deborah Feldman's Unorthodox book; the battle waged over forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control; and a pathetic article written which suggested forgetting the Holocaust.

In the latter, the attention-seeking contrariness-driven Beacon, which was dismissed as a YU paper after its last stunt, somehow was still able to get some attention to itself by penning an absolutely horrible piece whining that Jews still use the Holocaust as a reasoning behind being for or against various policies. When I first saw the piece via email, I questioned if anyone was actually reading such drivel, and didn't think it was worth replying to, not even bothering to read a reply someone sent me later at first. But later that night, I decided to read the reply - and it was absolutely fantastic. In particular, this portion struck me as exactly the point: 
[...] Remembering the Holocaust is not only important for its own sake. It is important because memory is education, education is action, and action is necessary: for any people anywhere. The ultimate goal of Holocaust education, of course, is genocide prevention: a promise encapsulated in the rallying mantra of “Never Again,” that which we have at once chanted and yet betrayed repeatedly.
In a world without memory, we will simply lose our imagination to conceptualize peril. [...]
The same point was struck in the responses to the Obama administration's push regarding birth control without an exemption for religious organizations. Judaism is not against birth control, but the First Amendment is crucial to members of all religions regardless of the specifics of a given law. The Orthodox Union (among others) clearly noted this issue in their condemnation of the move - and yet supporters of the Obama administration on this issue believe this issue is something which should be forced upon religious organizations regardless. The Constitution, where freedom of religion was laid out originally in this country, is viewed as an old document written by people hundreds of years ago who didn't have the same social values as our enlightened, tech-driven generation. It is therefore not surprising that people would believe that it is trumped by certain important social values of today - except that however noble the intention, it ignores that the Constitution is not revered by many nor held as the basis of our laws because of its age. It is held in high esteem because of its wisdom - wisdom in how it approached, and most importantly, approaches, the future of this country. The reason there is a strict line between government and religions is so that there can never be a justification given for intruding on the religious freedoms of the people of this country. Once that line is crossed, there is no longer a concept of a religious freedom; there are only activities which the government accepts, and activities which it does not. Religion matters not at all; freedom matters not at all.

Finally, when reading reviews and descriptions of Deborah Feldman's book, in seems that in every aspect of life in one sect of Chassidim [at least among a large group], the approach to questions was simply "we don't ask". In fact, there was a review which I believe quoted one Chassidish woman as musing after a few such comments that "we don't do well with questions". But if we do not ask, we can never understand - and it is clear that Deborah Feldman did not understand much about how and why Judaism approaches life, a too common failing in the Jewish community. We cannot merely speak to traditions as the wisdom of old being passed down; we need to understand it so we can continue to pass it down as wisdom, and not some random archaic set of rules. 

It is too often forgotten today that older approaches to life, law, and even remembering the Holocaust are not simply lists of rules or mantras to be followed blindly. Instead, they are incredibly structured, developed, thought out concepts which are meant to last for centuries, if not all eternity. Our job is to delve into them in order to understand them, and only then begin to determine the appropriate approaches to the issues of our times, utilizing those concepts and the lessons from our histories.

45 comments:

  1. ooohh! you posted on the blog- you know what that means :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is a reason for that old mantra "He who does not study history is doomed to repeat it." But the key, as you point out, is studying--delving into the whys and wherefors--rather than rote reading. Without that delving, and delving deeply, you end up with some dismissing, as archaic and no longer relevant, documents and precepts that have shaped who we are and who we should be.

    To be strictly fair, however, that deep delving and studying of some ideas, precepts and "must do's" would also bring to light that some might need some tweaking or need replacement in light of what we now know about the world and how it works.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ser - Nope! :)

    ProfK - Definitely. Nobody would say to accept it all without thought; the point is to delve into it, understand it, and if something is no longer true or applies, then revisit that point.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "forcing religious institutions to pay for birth control"

    This is very misleading. Employers do not pay for birth control coverage because having birth control included in health insurance REDUCES the costs. That is why you have heard absolutely no complaints from business groups regarding this mandate.

    The Catholics would be on much stronger ground if they would complain about the mandates that about a dozen states have for assisted reproductive techonologies. These are very expensive and some of them are actual murder according to Catholic theology. One of the states which such a mandate is Mitt Romney's Massachusets; Romneycare mandates not only contraception but in vitro fertilization which involved murder according to the Catholics.

    But note that this is NOT murder according to Judaism, and Orthodox lobbyists LOVE the mandated coverages to ART. Allowing the Catholic church to veto coverages prevents Jews from fully practicing THEIR religion through fulfilling pru urvu. One can seriously argue that the government should not worry about assisting individuals in their religious obligations, but that is not an argument that the Orthodox world has ever accepted. (Note the huge government subsidies to Orthodox social service organizations, and the longstanding attempt to get funding for Jewish schools, attempts which have been very successful in parts of Canada and Europe.)

    And the Catholics would have a better argument if they were willing to accept that the government, or third parties, can provide contraception coverage, which in fact is President Obama's revised plan. But the Catholic Church would like to ban contraception and abortion for everyone, even Jews for whom on rare occasions abortion is halachically mandated. The Catholic Church is hypocritical here (and so is Mitt Romney).

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have not read Feldman's book and don't plan to. I've seen more than enough expressions by young adults with resentments towards the religion of their upbringing and don't need to see another. I hope that she takes the book royalties and invests in some therapy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regarding the holocaust, we Jews SHOULD continue to use it as justification for certain policies. One example is Israel's Law of Return. Another is opposing the nativist tendencies in American politics that are behind the attempts to stop immigration (both legal and illegal). Another is to say "Never Again" to any and all genocide. If we, as witnesses to such, don't cry out, who will?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The US Constitution does not grant all powder to the federal government, or specifically to the President. There are things the federal government is forbidden to do or mandate regardless of associated costs and benefits. If it's not among the enumerated powders, the federal government doesn't have the power. This is very inconvenient to social engineers in high places, so there has been a long-standing campaign to reinterpret the Constitution into oblivion. The social engineers are to the Constitution as Reformers, etc., are to the Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  8. above I should have written "power" not powder!

    ReplyDelete
  9. >The Constitution, where freedom of religion was laid out originally in this country, is viewed as an old document written by people hundreds of years ago who didn't have the same social values as our enlightened, tech-driven generation. It is therefore not surprising that people would believe that it is trumped by certain important social values of today - except that however noble the intention, it ignores that the Constitution is not revered by many nor held as the basis of our laws because of its age. It is held in high esteem because of its wisdom - wisdom in how it approached, and most importantly, approaches, the future of this country. The reason there is a strict line between government and religions is so that there can never be a justification given for intruding on the religious freedoms of the people of this country.

    This seems kind of wrong on several counts. Robert Jackson famously said about the role of the Supreme Court that "we are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible because we are final." Similarly, the Constitution is the basis of our legal system not because it is awesome, but because it is the basis of our legal system. Legally. That's the law.

    Don't get me wrong! The American constitution is pretty neat, and was probably the best in the world at the time and for a good while afterwards, but even its drafters didn't think it was all that good, and they fully expected that we would change it. A lot. Perhaps as a result of future generations' more enlightened, tech-savvy fondness for lattes.

    The First Amendment wasn't even originally part of the Constitution (it was, drumroll, an amendment), and it originally only required that the federal government not interfere with religion - it assumed that interfering with religion was the job of the various state governments. So, it doesn't really make sense to present "the separation of church and state" as a supreme and constant value that was eternally stated in the text of the constitution. If Pennsylvania wanted to force Catholics to pay for birth control, they probably could have (back then).

    Third, are you arguing that requiring that employer insurance plans that need to cover contraceptives or birth control is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds? If not, why is the Constitution relevant?

    Fourth, how is requiring the Church to pay for insurance coverage that also covers contraceptives different than requiring the Church to pay their employees in money, which can also be used for contraceptives?

    Fifth, surely you don't believe that the First Amendment's religious protections are or ought to be absolute?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Charlie - While in the long run perhaps it reduces costs, I think that is just skipping the point of dispute.

    Interesting points about in vitro.

    That's not quite the President's plan - he's saying that they still need to provide it, but that the costs will be handed over to the insurance companies (who are *not* thrilled with that), which seems like a different issue.

    I think that your arguments on this miss the basic point, which is that they feel this is something that is against their beliefs to support (regardless of the increased financial costs later) and therefore shouldn't have to. That is a very reasonable argument.

    [Excuse choppy responses, the new comment format is horrible. Bad Google.]

    have not read Feldman's book and don't plan to. I've seen more than enough expressions by young adults with resentments towards the religion of their upbringing and don't need to see another. I hope that she takes the book royalties and invests in some therapy.

    Amen. I have no plans to read it (though I might if it were lying on a table), for much the same reasons, along with the troubling excerpts that have been found to be less than truthful (accidental or not, it's still irresponsible to publish).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Regarding the holocaust, we Jews SHOULD continue to use it as justification for certain policies. One example is Israel's Law of Return. Another is opposing the nativist tendencies in American politics that are behind the attempts to stop immigration (both legal and illegal). Another is to say "Never Again" to any and all genocide. If we, as witnesses to such, don't cry out, who will?

    Agreed, and read the reply to the piece. It's fantastic.

    Bob - The US Constitution does not grant all powder to the federal government, or specifically to the President. There are things the federal government is forbidden to do or mandate regardless of associated costs and benefits. If it's not among the enumerated powders, the federal government doesn't have the power. This is very inconvenient to social engineers in high places, so there has been a long-standing campaign to reinterpret the Constitution into oblivion. The social engineers are to the Constitution as Reformers, etc., are to the Torah.

    Right, exactly.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vox - Similarly, the Constitution is the basis of our legal system not because it is awesome, but because it is the basis of our legal system. Legally. That's the law.

    Agreed (not sure if that's where you meant it was somewhat wrong).

    The American constitution is pretty neat, and was probably the best in the world at the time and for a good while afterwards, but even its drafters didn't think it was all that good, and they fully expected that we would change it. A lot. Perhaps as a result of future generations' more enlightened, tech-savvy fondness for lattes.

    Also agreed! My point wasn't that it can't be changed, but that it shouldn't be tossed aside without thinking about the reasoning behind its rules and thinking about them. It's why amendments require such large majorities - so that the whims of a nation and its government wouldn't change the rules without serious consideration and substantial agreement.

    The First Amendment wasn't even originally part of the Constitution (it was, drumroll, an amendment), and it originally only required that the federal government not interfere with religion - it assumed that interfering with religion was the job of the various state governments. So, it doesn't really make sense to present "the separation of church and state" as a supreme and constant value that was eternally stated in the text of the constitution. If Pennsylvania wanted to force Catholics to pay for birth control, they probably could have (back then).

    Let's not minimize the Bill of Rights. :) And I will agree with you that "separation of church and state" (not ever written in the Constitution) isn't a supreme law by any means. But certainly the point was that federal government should never intrude on people's religious activities and beliefs ("free exercise thereof").

    If Pennsylvania wanted to force Catholics to pay for birth control, they probably could have (back then).

    I don't think that's true at all - if anything, quite the opposite. The belief then was that government was meant only to serve the people. Between that, the First, and the Fifth ("nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"), I can't imagine that they would have even thought that such an action was acceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Third, are you arguing that requiring that employer insurance plans that need to cover contraceptives or birth control is unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds? If not, why is the Constitution relevant?

    I don't know enough about the interpretation of the Law since to opine on that. I just think that it at the least flies in the face of the concept. (But then again so does much of the healthcare law.)

    Fourth, how is requiring the Church to pay for insurance coverage that also covers contraceptives different than requiring the Church to pay their employees in money, which can also be used for contraceptives?

    Who's requiring them to pay in money? Moreover, even if they were forced to pay in money, there's a far cry between forcing the Church to directly pay for something and for a person to choose on their own to use money paid to them for that same something. Come on.

    Fifth, surely you don't believe that the First Amendment's religious protections are or ought to be absolute?

    I've gone back and forth on this. Essentially not - i.e. actions which negatively impact others. And before you make the argument, there's a difference between actively doing something which negatively impacts someone and refusing to take part in an action which could positively impact someone (and that's obviously a debatable point itself in this situation, depending on one's views on contraception). That's especially true when it's a situation only coming into existence because of a government mandate which has its own issues. If religious groups were forced to follow every government mandate, then the freedom of religion is effectively worthless.

    So, no, not absolute, but government shouldn't have absolute say over religious groups either. I would lean in favor of the religious groups unless there's an overarching reason to do otherwise. (Like an honor killing shouldn't be allowed.)

    ReplyDelete
  14. >But certainly the point was that federal government should never intrude on people's religious activities and beliefs ("free exercise thereof").

    Well, kind of. It's a good principle, but I don't think that was precisely the intention, insofar as an intention can be ascribed to a whole bunch of people who died a long long time ago.

    >I just think that it at the least flies in the face of the concept. (But then again so does much of the healthcare law.)

    Eyeroll. Fascist. ;)

    >I can't imagine that they would have even thought that such an action was acceptable.

    States were allowed to do whatever their constitutions allowed. Religion and state were not zealously separated way back when in state governments.

    Also, how is the 5th Amendment relevant? What's being taken for public use? Also, don't read that clause so broadly that you outlaw, say taxes.

    >Who's requiring them to pay in money?

    The Fair Labor Standards Act, for one. I also assume Ohio has a state minimum wage law. Unless maybe in Ohio you can get paid in tomatoes? If so, you can probably also buy contraceptives with tomatoes.

    >Moreover, even if they were forced to pay in money, there's a far cry between forcing the Church to directly pay for something and for a person to choose on their own to use money paid to them for that same something.

    Yes, but that's not what's happening. The law requires employers, if they provide employer health care plans, to cover at least x,y,z, of which, say one small part of z will be birth control. If the Church is providing you with a health care insurance plan, for it to pass government muster, it must also cover birth control. I can use Church-provided insurance, to purchase birth control. At no point is the Church buying anyone the pill, or administering it.

    Ditto if in ante-Obamacare world, the Church decides not to cover birth control but pays you in money. I can use the Church-provided money to purchase birth control. In fact, if you preferred to analyze the labor market from a laissez-faire perspective, you would assume that if the plan the Church purchased did not provide the coverage, and the coverage was desirable, that workers would negotiate for higher wages so they could purchase the contraceptive care outside of the plan. So, all in all, seems pretty analogous.

    Mind you, this is all without the compromise Obama suggested, which is that if the employer has religious objections, the cost will be borne by the insurance company.

    >If religious groups were forced to follow every government mandate, then the freedom of religion is effectively worthless.

    And if somebody could opt out of the law anytime they had a religious excuse, then laws would be bogus.

    I think the balance the law strikes is between laws specifically designed to interfere with religion (members of the Native American Church may not smoke peyote in their religious rituals) and laws of general applicability that incidentally affect religion (no one may smoke peyote). The latter is allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Oh, and the distinction is not between positive and negative laws. The law can mandate you for the draft, for example, even if you're a Mennonite or whatever. The relevant distinction is whether the law is of general or specific applicability.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Also, how is the 5th Amendment relevant? What's being taken for public use? Also, don't read that clause so broadly that you outlaw, say taxes.

    Why not? :) All seriousness, it's not like taxes was a given at all. When was the first income tax? Early 20th century?

    What's being taken for public use is people's earnings for the sake of public health insurance. That's pretty straightforward.

    My point isn't that it's not allowed (though I think the healthcare law will be struck down), but that the concept of government having a large say of someone's earnings and wealth is at the least a large chiddush.

    The Fair Labor Standards Act, for one. I also assume Ohio has a state minimum wage law. Unless maybe in Ohio you can get paid in tomatoes? If so, you can probably also buy contraceptives with tomatoes.

    Hey, I'm from Ohio! Anyway, that wasn't really my point.

    Yes, but that's not what's happening. The law requires employers, if they provide employer health care plans, to cover at least x,y,z, of which, say one small part of z will be birth control. If the Church is providing you with a health care insurance plan, for it to pass government muster, it must also cover birth control. I can use Church-provided insurance, to purchase birth control. At no point is the Church buying anyone the pill, or administering it.

    But that's just it. The Church isn't required to give its people health insurance (and hopefully that won't be a requirement either) - it is offering it as a benefit. Why should government have a say in what benefits an institution wishes to offer its members? Certainly once it encroaches on the beliefs of the group, it is crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

    Ditto if in ante-Obamacare world, the Church decides not to cover birth control but pays you in money. I can use the Church-provided money to purchase birth control. In fact, if you preferred to analyze the labor market from a laissez-faire perspective, you would assume that if the plan the Church purchased did not provide the coverage, and the coverage was desirable, that workers would negotiate for higher wages so they could purchase the contraceptive care outside of the plan. So, all in all, seems pretty analogous.

    Again, that's not the same at all. The Church not assisting directly in the purchase of something they feel inappropriate is not the same as them paying someone, and that person then choosing on their own to purchase the same. It's the difference between me buying porn, drugs, or booze for a poor person or me giving them charity and them choosing to buy the same instead of using the money for food. In the former, I'm culpable for the action. In the latter, I'm not. In fact, I would rather (and usually do) buy the person food instead, so I can be sure that my money is being well spent, but that's simply not feasible from an employer perspective.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mind you, this is all without the compromise Obama suggested, which is that if the employer has religious objections, the cost will be borne by the insurance company.

    Understood, and while I don't love it, it's obviously far better. My point in the post is addressing those who felt "screw the Church and its beliefs, everyone should be covered for birth control".

    And if somebody could opt out of the law anytime they had a religious excuse, then laws would be bogus.

    Sure, unless we have a fair definition of what constitutes a religion. For the most part, US law coincides nicely with Judeo-Christian laws (understandably), so it's a non-issue.

    I think the balance the law strikes is between laws specifically designed to interfere with religion (members of the Native American Church may not smoke peyote in their religious rituals) and laws of general applicability that incidentally affect religion (no one may smoke peyote). The latter is allowed.

    I don't think that's the case - I think there's a greater tilt toward religion than that when it comes to laws, especially as it's easy to push specifics as generally applicable (say, circumcision).

    Oh, and the distinction is not between positive and negative laws.

    I was saying active vs. passive activity, not positive/negative.

    ReplyDelete
  18. >When was the first income tax? Early 20th century?

    Dude! Article I, Section 8, clause - Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. The income tax *may* be a different thing, but there's a constitutional amendment for that too. Honestly, what is it with Republicans and taxes? You guys act as if the whole concept was thought up at a meeting of the Super-Socialist Fun Club after the 2004 Democratic convention.

    >What's being taken for public use is people's earnings for the sake of public health insurance. That's pretty straightforward.

    No it isn't. Your money is being used by you to buy, for yourself, health insurance. Indirectly, this benefits the public weal, but it's not going into some government superfund. And, again, taxes are something the government takes you to mamash spend on the public. Get over it.

    >but that the concept of government having a large say of someone's earnings and wealth is at the least a large chiddush.

    So long as you ignore taxes. Or jury duty. Or armed service. Etc.

    >Hey, I'm from Ohio!

    My sympathies.

    >The Church isn't required to give its people health insurance (and hopefully that won't be a requirement either) - it is offering it as a benefit. Why should government have a say in what benefits an institution wishes to offer its members?

    If it impacts a legitimate government interest, why not? You pooh-poohed the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio's minimum wage laws (which may or may not involve tomatoes), but how is regulating minimum wage or overtime regulations not an example of a government expressing a say in what benefits an institution offers its members? You may think that's illegitimate, I guess, but it's been the norm for a long long time.

    >Certainly once it encroaches on the beliefs of the group, it is crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

    So, if my Christian Science beliefs tell me that first aid is a sin, certainly the government can't force me to provide first aid kits for the miners in my coal mine? What if I became a Christian Scientist yesterday? Is the government going to give me a farher in Christian Science?

    We have laws, and that's it. The legal system is not an opt-in program.

    >It's the difference between me buying porn, drugs, or booze for a poor person or me giving them charity and them choosing to buy the same instead of using the money for food.

    It's more like giving them your 7-11 gift card (if they have such things), where your homeless friend could buy both bread, and pornography. In both cases, you are not buying him pornography.

    >I don't think that's the case - I think there's a greater tilt toward religion than that when it comes to laws, especially as it's easy to push specifics as generally applicable (say, circumcision).

    That's more a result of the general unwillingness to outlaw male circumcision than constitutional concerns. But would you agree that female circumcision could be outlawed as a law of general applicability?

    I didn't mention peyote for no reason. It was the subject of a Supreme Court case.

    >I was saying active vs. passive activity, not positive/negative.

    It wasn't retaliatory, but anticipatory. :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. >So, if my Christian Science beliefs tell me that first aid is a sin, certainly the government can't force me to provide first aid kits for the miners in my coal mine? What if I became a Christian Scientist yesterday? Is the government going to give me a farher in Christian Science?

    No. Then don't OPEN a coal mine business that REQUIRES aid since accidents are very likely. The same can't be said for what is being asked by the church here. The churchs' "business" has nothing to do with contraception.

    ReplyDelete
  20. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  21. >The churchs' "business" has nothing to do with contraception.

    They don't employ life forms that reproduce sexually? Pretty sure the occurrence of employees having sex is not a demonstrably rarer occurrence than coal miners needing first aid.

    Also, to be only slightly cheeky - how are they not in the business of contraception? They instruct half their employees not to have sex at all, and they tell everyone else they should have sex, but not use contraception! It's front and center!

    But more seriously, what principle are you advocating here? The government can only regulate business activities deemed essential to your business, regardless of national policy? The government is per se not allowed to regulate insurance or compensation schemes, because insurance is only essential to insurance companies? That would be ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dude! Article I, Section 8, clause - Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. The income tax *may* be a different thing, but there's a constitutional amendment for that too. Honestly, what is it with Republicans and taxes? You guys act as if the whole concept was thought up at a meeting of the Super-Socialist Fun Club after the 2004 Democratic convention.

    Missed my point. The point was that even with the power to do so, the govt was extremely reluctant to do so - only if they felt it was truly necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  23. No it isn't. Your money is being used by you to buy, for yourself, health insurance. Indirectly, this benefits the public weal, but it's not going into some government superfund. And, again, taxes are something the government takes you to mamash spend on the public. Get over it.

    Re: insurance - only to an extent, and in the specifics here the Church is fronting likely 75% of the bill for coverage they don't want to include for moral reasons.

    Re: taxes, that's obviously a matter of intense debate as to what should or shouldn't be spent on the public from people and company's earnings.

    ReplyDelete
  24. >They don't employ life forms that reproduce sexually? Pretty sure the occurrence of employees having sex is not a demonstrably rarer occurrence than coal miners needing first aid.

    Oh stop it. They also employ life forms that eat as well. Maybe free food should be given to them as well. I feel like pulling out my hair here. Did you seriously write that? Employees having sex has nothing to do with working for a church. A coal miner getting hurt on the job is directly linked to his job. A more suiting example for your "employees having sex" would be a brothel where the sex is the job.

    ReplyDelete
  25. >But more seriously, what principle are you advocating here?

    What do you mean what am I advocating? At what point do you believe "national policy" crosses a line? So because women don't want to pay for their own birth control that means you set out a national policy that they are owed free ones? And that you have to trump someone elses' belief in that process? If euthanasia became legal, do you believe it would cross a line for national policy to dictate the OU has to offer it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. >A coal miner getting hurt on the job is directly linked to his job. A more suiting example for your "employees having sex" would be a brothel where the sex is the job.

    Again, what is your principle? Why is it okay for the government to tell coal extractors they must provide first aid kits on their premises, but it's not okay to tell other employers the insurance benefits they agree to pay for must include some basic things?

    I understood your point about coal miners to be that coal companies must expect injuries to happen to their workers, and that they therefore must be prepared to provide them. Just as the Catholic Church must expect its employees to have sex, perhaps not on the premises, but I'm sure they do have sex somewhere. Is the distinction you're aiming at that the government can only mandate regulation for on-the-premises conduct?

    >At what point do you believe "national policy" crosses a line? So because women don't want to pay for their own birth control that means you set out a national policy that they are owed free ones?

    First, it's not free. It's an employee benefit. It's in lieu of a greater salary. For whatever reason, employers would rather pay for their employee's insurance. Second, what is the difference between birth control and measles vaccinations? Is it just that the Church doesn't like birth control but likes measles vaccinations? Christian scientists, I am sure, appreciate neither. Is there to be absolutely no permissible area of government regulation for insurance because anyone can come up with a religious objection to anything? Again, what is the principle you are advocating?

    >If euthanasia became legal, do you believe it would cross a line for national policy to dictate the OU has to offer it?

    No.

    ReplyDelete
  27. >Is the distinction you're aiming at that the government can only mandate regulation for on-the-premises conduct?

    Well, if I am going to accept government getting involved in regulation of the business...it ought to be...business related. I am currently an employee of a media company. I eat. I eat at home. Should my employer be forced to offer me free food?

    >First, it's not free. It's an employee benefit. It's in lieu of a greater salary.

    You're just playing semantics. The employer does not want to give a higher salary therefore now the government is forcing them to receive it another way. And since they are not paying for it, it IS free.


    >Second, what is the difference between birth control and measles vaccinations?

    One is a potential life, the other is a virus. From a common sense POV, health insurance is there to be healthy. That is medicine in general. So if you are going to offer health insurance I can't imagine you wanting to be against a measles vaccination. But if you want to ask me about government involvement, I would say they should just butt the hell out. If a company does not want to give you measles vaccination pay for it your damn self.

    >No.

    So that's where we differ. I am not willing to hand over that much power to the state. Least of all in such morally charged issues. I don't take too kindly to people that believe they are entitled to something, and since they can't acquire it own their own, they decide to send the state out, and take it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. >You're just playing semantics. The employer does not want to give a higher salary therefore now the government is forcing them to receive it another way. And since they are not paying for it, it IS free.

    It's not semantics. It's what it is. The government does not require employers to pay for their employees' health insurance, just like it does not require them to have casual Fridays. The norm in most countries is that employers do not pay for their employees' health insurance. In many countries, it is the government. However, in America, for a variety of reasons, part of the typical employment compensation package is medical insurance. This is by no means universal, however - many employers do not. However, it is the norm, and it is expected. Thanks to our screwy system, most people rely on their employers for insurance. If you're an employer who does not offer a plan, you will have to offer some other incentive, e.g. a higher salary. The government is not forcing either side of the equation. The free market for labor is.

    What the government is regulating is insurance plans. All insurance plans must offer to pay for birth control. Again, is the government allowed to regulate insurance plans, employer purchased or otherwise? Or is it per se illegitimate for the government to regulate insurance?

    >From a common sense POV, health insurance is there to be healthy. That is medicine in general. So if you are going to offer health insurance I can't imagine you wanting to be against a measles vaccination.

    Are you saying there's no health benefits at all to ready access to birth control? That there is no discernible reason for a government that bears responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, both economic and medical, to be at all interested in whether people who want birth control can get it with their insurance?

    >But if you want to ask me about government involvement, I would say they should just butt the hell out. If a company does not want to give you measles vaccination pay for it your damn self.

    Then why not let the coal company tell their employees to pay for their own damn black lung? What is the operating principle here? Health services you like - these the government can enforce - health services you don't - none of the government's damn business?

    ReplyDelete
  29. >I am not willing to hand over that much power to the state. Least of all in such morally charged issues. I don't take too kindly to people that believe they are entitled to something, and since they can't acquire it own their own, they decide to send the state out, and take it.

    I am not entirely sure of the society in which you think you've been living. The government has been able to use, and has been using, these powers for a long time. And our government is by far the least intrusive in this regard. Because we don't want to "force" people into a government health plan, or even allow a government health plan, we have a system that assumes employers will provide it as part of compensation. Now you're telling us that the government can't regulate those plans, because then it would be "forcing" them to provide care they don't like. Yes, government is force. You're not happy with the government doing anything.

    Our democracy long ago decided that our government has an interest in interstate commerce and the individual health of its citizens, which can be expressed in the Medicare and Medicaid plans, Social Security, the EPA, forcing hospitals to treat the destitute, regulation of the insurance industry, etc. Part of this is mandating a certain amount of basic service in every plan. It is not free. It is being paid for. Whatever extra cost will come out of salaries or be passed onto the consumer. But is not a "right."

    That you frame it as an issue of rights, leads me to believe your problem is not with employers "being forced" to pay for birth control or euthanasia. Your problem is with the legality, or possible legality, of birth control and euthanasia. But the birth control boat has left the dock. Good luck with euthanasia.

    ReplyDelete
  30. >Missed my point. The point was that even with the power to do so, the govt was extremely reluctant to do so - only if they felt it was truly necessary.

    As opposed to government programs now? Just done for a lark? If the government didn't think it was necessary, presumably, it wouldn't do it. Time was, the government thought it absolutely necessary that nobody be allowed to drink alcohol - even if their state allowed them to. Time was, the government thought people should be able to avail themselves of the legal system to keep people as slaves. There was no halcyon era of government only meddling in absolutely necessary affairs. A government that takes an interest in the insurance plans offered by employers is not a frivolously meddlesome government, even by American standards.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I think you're missing the main point here.

    No.

    I think this is the telling line. In your mind, government has no limits. What does freedom of religion mean? If government can restrict any aspect or force any action related to religion, then what value does it have? In your view there is no balance - it simply comes down to government decides, period.

    You keep using examples of government already doing things as a proof they can do more, but that's precisely the point. We believe there should be a check on that power, and that even some of what has happened to date is questionable. That's not to say that these actions are unconstitutional; but that government has passed laws regarding various aspects of, say, health insurance guidelines, does not mean that they therefore are allowed to or even if allowed to that they should do the same with other aspects, particularly when those interfere with other freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  32. >If government can restrict any aspect or force any action related to religion, then what value does it have? In your view there is no balance - it simply comes down to government decides, period.

    Sure I believe in balance. But make the argument that the balancing here is wrong. All I'm getting here is vague, absolutist objections. "It's absurd for government to be regulating employment insurance programs! Birth control is an absurd area for government interest! Whoever heard of government telling people what to do? Religion trumps all!"

    I've been trying to drill down on these premises, and figure out how you're coming to your conclusions. From what I can tell so far, your "balance" analysis is just conclusory. You side with conservative religious groups against the government and you dislike government interest in medicine in general. It just sounds a lot like "Republicans don't like X, therefore X is illegitimate and the Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves."

    Give me the principle here, from which we can construct a rule. At what point do we stop deferring to religious objections?

    ReplyDelete
  33. That's just it. For the most part, religions aren't trying to avoid or stop everything. But there are specific items which are important to various religions, and there is little to no reason to cross those lines (certainly as it was proposed to have been done originally).

    Are there reasonable safeguards which government can put in place that are non-objectionable? Sure, lots of them. And in those instances, there wasn't any real objection to what was put in place. People of this country value certain standards, and it makes sense to create some standards - i.e. situations where the government interferes on behalf of the people, which is what government is supposed to: Do what the people they represent wish them to do.

    Within that representation of the people, certain wise guidelines were laid out to protect various rights of the people, even when they are in the minority, and a few in particular were specified with good reason: Speech, religion, etc. Would it be good if cigarette companies had to put pictures of messed up lungs on their boxes? Yes. But it tramples on their freedom of speech, and IIRC the Supreme Court just sided with them that while they need the warning, they can't be forced to put the graphic.

    Here, you have a situation where the government is trying to enact something which they feel is an important item for people's health. However, this particular item is one which is an issue for members of certain religions, and moreover is not something that the people whom it's supposed to 'protect' cannot purchase on their own. It's dissimilar from your peyote example completely, which is restricting an illegal act; this is trying to force a group to perform an action they find morally reprehensible, and moreover for something that is not necessary to be done this way. (Interesting aside: I think Santorum is trying to make an even stronger argument, which is that the premise that birth control is protective of women is actually false based on the data from the last 50 years.)

    I believe that that's the balance that is necessary: Government should only be acting on behalf of the general population, and within that, should limit itself in particular when it comes to situations which encroach on the freedoms of the people.

    You're right that the government can tax; it can regulate. But within that, it shouldn't simply try to create a set way of life for the people, but instead only act to protect the people without encroaching on their lives and their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  34. >However, it is the norm, and it is expected.

    Hence the problem: Expectations.

    >If you're an employer who does not offer a plan, you will have to offer some other incentive, e.g. a higher salary.

    You will HAVE to? I guess you mean the free market will dictate it's in his best interest to offer this benefit right? So why is government getting involved?

    >Are you saying there's no health benefits at all to ready access to birth control? That there is no discernible reason for a government that bears responsibility for the welfare of its citizens, both economic and medical, to be at all interested in whether people who want birth control can get it with their insurance?

    I am saying, the Left has been near successful in using language such as "women's health" and "reproductive rights" to convince a public that destroying a potential life (to many) is the same thing as destroying a potential deadly virus. It all comes under the umbrella of "health." And who in their right minds would be against a woman being healthy, right? Only a cold blooded republican of course. There are many many many health benefits out there Vox, including phyiscal exercise. I don't suppose the gov't should regulate insurance offer that too should they?

    >Then why not let the coal company tell their employees to pay for their own damn black lung? What is the operating principle here? Health services you like - these the government can enforce - health services you don't - none of the government's damn business?

    Vox, dude, I responded to this twice. In general, I would like gov't out. But exceptions do occur (just like they occur in every facet of life). That if gov't DOES regulate it should regulate something that has exact bearing on what it is your employee is doing for the job.

    >we have a system that assumes employers will provide it as part of compensation.

    Don't assume anything. Let companies that want to offer insurance give it. And let companies pick what they want to offer.

    >You're not happy with the government doing anything.

    No, I am happy when gov't does what it is supposed to do. I don't think because woman all of a sudden don't want to pay for birth control, kal va'chomer, it means gov't has to now tell the insurance company it has to pay for that, and let alone to institutions that are morally against such things.

    The fact that our gov't has been doing this already is not a good sign for me Vox. I would be happier if gov't involvement would be less. The fact that we have been doing it like this for some time does not mean we should continue.

    >Part of this is mandating a certain amount of basic service in every plan.

    And so we come to the crux of it all. This is my problem. The mandate. Regulating commerce does not mean mandating. Of course, the Court will have to decide on this one. But it is exactly this that I fear our gov't being able to force it's citizens to buy something upon their personhood.

    And no, I have no problem with birth control. My wife is quite a fan. We pay for them ourselves. The "rights" issue is not my issue, but an issue with the Left. That is how all this starts. Read my comment above.

    ReplyDelete
  35. >You side with conservative religious groups against the government and you dislike government interest in medicine in general.

    What do you mean we side with the Conservatives against government interest in medicine? That is the premise. Medicine is just an example. The premise is how do you insure the greatest amount of Liberty out there even if it's to the detriment of some individuals (in our case, that would not be able to afford birth control) and even when that Liberty is given to slimy insurance or bank industries. Because ultimately, that same Liberty is given to the people. We are working on different premises. Liberals value Equality to the detriment of Liberty. Conservatives value Liberty to the detriment of Equality. So in our case, the freedom of CHurch is questioned in order to facilitate equality of health that is distributed out there....under the guise of a "right"

    ReplyDelete
  36. >I guess you mean the free market will dictate it's in his best interest to offer this benefit right?

    Yes.

    >So why is government getting involved?

    Government also regulates a minimum wage. There is a long history of government regulation of the employee compensation provided by employers. This isn't radical.

    I assume the reason here is incidental to the government's larger scheme. The government regulates insurance packages, and believes they must offer at least a basic level of service, judged to include birth control (I don't know if free, but some sort of level of service). Since most people in America get their insurance through their employer, practically speaking, if the government wants its regulation of the insurance industry to be effective, it has to also regulate insurance plans offered by employers. To not do so, to bud out of every employer's business, as it were, would vitiate the whole thing.

    >There are many many many health benefits out there Vox, including phyiscal exercise. I don't suppose the gov't should regulate insurance offer that too should they?

    I see no reason why not? A health benefit is a health benefit. All the talk of death panels came from the idea that if people wish to consult with physicians on end-of-life care, that should be covered by insurance, too. I don't think it's absurd to get some sort of copay for gym membership or something.

    I'm getting three different things from you here. One, you seem predisposed to thinking that any government intervention in health is unwarranted, absent it meeting some obscure standard of necessity, so far undefined. Two, you happen to think birth control and physical exercise are particularly frivolous health services which, even assuming government involvement in health insurance, are too silly for insurance to cover, or to be required to cover? Three, some sort of hostility to the Left for really liking birth control, which is the possible destruction of a life.

    >That if gov't DOES regulate it should regulate something that has exact bearing on what it is your employee is doing for the job.

    This principle is arbitrary and unworkable in a practical setting. It's arbitrary because why stop or start there? Why does compensation not bear on a core concern of the employer? Why is health more important to a coal miner than a deacon? It's unworkable because any time the government wishes to regulate something which bears exactly on whatever an industry does, it's going to enact regulation that at least incidentally impact the ancillary business concerns of others. This regulation, for example, stems from regulation of the insurance industry. Because most of our insurance comes from employers, it is functionally impossible to regulate insurance companies in ways that do not intrude upon employer liberty.

    >Let companies that want to offer insurance give it. And let companies pick what they want to offer.

    I'm just saying in a world where government regulates minimum wage and maximum hours, and where health costs are the biggest financial drain for both the government and the consumer, it seems insane no to try to regulate the insurance industry, even if it intrudes upon the sacred prerogative of the employer. I'm not seeing the Rubicon we just crossed.

    ReplyDelete
  37. >No, I am happy when gov't does what it is supposed to do.

    Still undefined.

    >and let alone to institutions that are morally against such things.

    They happen to object to this. But they could object to anything, even our frivolous measles vaccinations. Do religions get to cop out of all their legal obligations?

    >I don't think because woman all of a sudden don't want to pay for birth control

    Obviously, there's a political element here, in that the Democrats know their constituency, and if Obamacare was Romneycare on a national level, I assume this would not be part of the required service.

    OTOH, this isn't just women want cheap pills. It's generally accepted that health care costs for everyone, whether through premiums or government spending on social services borne by taxes, if everyone had a certain level of insurance already going in. If "insurance" for our purposes could mean anything, it wouldn't be a very effective program. This is is jut one element.

    >The "rights" issue is not my issue, but an issue with the Left.

    There is no rights issue.

    >But it is exactly this that I fear our gov't being able to force it's citizens to buy something upon their personhood.

    You fear entitlements, and you fear people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Ezzie, before my last response to HH, there was another, longer response. It was very awesome, and I would hate to think it's gone forever. Do you get comments also by email? Anyway, HH, my response was awesome, and you have conceded the point, for sure.

    As to Ezzie:

    >But there are specific items which are important to various religions, and there is little to no reason to cross those lines (certainly as it was proposed to have been done originally). ... this particular item is one which is an issue for members of certain religions, and moreover is not something that the people whom it's supposed to 'protect' cannot purchase on their own.

    With money the Church gives them! Even as originally proposed, why is Church paid-for insurance with which to buy BC different than Church provided money with which to buy BC? The Church's objection stems not just from the Church "being forced" to prevent birth but from everyone being allowed to use birth control and with it being even more readily available.

    >It's dissimilar from your peyote example completely, which is restricting an illegal act; this is trying to force a group to perform an action they find morally reprehensible, and moreover for something that is not necessary to be done this way.

    This is specifically why I said there is no distinction between positive and negative liberty in this regard. That very same court decision says very clearly the government can force you to do things you find religiously objectionable. Moreover, if necessity was the only standard by which we judged government activity, we could never have government activity.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Blogger thinks you're spam. :) I think it's in there now. Will reply later.

    ReplyDelete
  40. >you have conceded the point, for sure.

    I've conceded nothing. You are looking for a starting premise. I gave it to you. I want government out as much as possible. Now I agree with you that government is already in the game. But so what? It doesn't mean I want them in more. Birth control and gym membership are fantastic things. It doesn't mean I want government regulating businesses to offer it.

    >and you fear people being forced to take responsibility for themselves.

    Yes. I fear people being forced by the government. I want them to take responsibility on their own.

    >Do religions get to cop out of all their legal obligations?

    Well isn't that what this argument is all about? Keeping THIS from BECOMING their legal obligations. You have no problem shoving anything done the throat of a religious institution as long as people conceivably call it their "right to have" such as birth control or hypothetically euthanasia.

    >even if it intrudes upon the sacred prerogative of the employer.

    Isn't that what I just said. The right is for Liberty at the detriment of equality. The left is for equality at the detriment of liberty.

    My moral premise Vox, is that I don't feel an employee is entitled to any entitlement from their employer. A benefit is a benefit. The left is trying to transform the benefits into an entitlement. And the reason I don't believe in these entitlements is because in the long run, it makes people worse, morally.

    >There is no rights issue.

    Sure it is. That is how these things get onto the public debate stage.

    ReplyDelete
  41. >I see no reason why not?

    Exactly. You see this and say "why not." It suits me good. I look at it and say "it WOULD suit me good" BUT I don't want it at the expense of further regulation to a private company. Because, in the end, i don't want to just think about "the me" but at the totality of the picture and whether I want further government involvement at how it regulates.

    Do I want free health insurance from my employer? Sure. Would I want a raise? Sure. Do I want it to cover birth control at no extra charge? Sure. But I want none of these at the expense of the greater picture of the government telling my employer what it can offer or can't offer.


    >This principle is arbitrary and unworkable in a practical setting. It's arbitrary because why stop or start there?

    No, its not arbitrary at all. It seems from your standpoint anything can be rationalized in such a way that everything has some crumb of significance to the well being of the employee, that an employer should be responsible for. I have to get to work right? He should cover my auto insurance. My employer wants a happy employee right? Well, it's in my employers best interest to reduce stress for me, and I would be VERY happy if someone else would cover my rent on top of my compensation. We can add it to the benefits package.

    ReplyDelete
  42. >I see no reason why not?

    Exactly. You see this and say "why not." It suits me good. I look at it and say "it WOULD suit me good" BUT I don't want it at the expense of further regulation to a private company. Because, in the end, i don't want to just think about "the me" but at the totality of the picture and whether I want further government involvement at how it regulates.

    Do I want free health insurance from my employer? Sure. Would I want a raise? Sure. Do I want it to cover birth control at no extra charge? Sure. But I want none of these at the expense of the greater picture of the government telling my employer what it can offer or can't offer.


    >This principle is arbitrary and unworkable in a practical setting. It's arbitrary because why stop or start there?

    No, its not arbitrary at all. It seems from your standpoint anything can be rationalized in such a way that everything has some crumb of significance to the well being of the employee, that an employer should be responsible for. I have to get to work right? He should cover my auto insurance. My employer wants a happy employee right? Well, it's in my employers best interest to reduce stress for me, and I would be VERY happy if someone else would cover my rent on top of my compensation. We can add it to the benefits package.

    ReplyDelete
  43. >I've conceded nothing.

    Whoops. I meant to say "you would have conceded the point, for sure" as a result of my rebuttal which I thought was lost forever.

    >You have no problem shoving anything done the throat of a religious institution as long as people conceivably call it their "right to have" such as birth control or hypothetically euthanasia.

    Kal v'chomer if it was a right we were talking about, but we are NOT talking about rights, even. This has nothing to do with rights. Either the "right" to medical care, or the "right" to birth control. It's just an attempt to regulate insurance plans. The imposition on private employers is 100% incidental to that goal, purely because in America most insurance plans are purchased by employers. In a country where all plans were bought by individuals, the burden would fall on the individuals and/or the insurance companies themselves, as is what is ultimately happening here with the birth control compromise. In a country where the state provided the insurance, it would be the burden of the state.

    >My moral premise Vox, is that I don't feel an employee is entitled to any entitlement from their employer. A benefit is a benefit. The left is trying to transform the benefits into an entitlement.

    No. They surely want to, and that's the motivation behind making health care a government business. But Obamacare represents the compromise they came up with, i.e. regulate the insurance industry, which is considered less radical for government to do.

    >Isn't that what I just said. The right is for Liberty at the detriment of equality. The left is for equality at the detriment of liberty.

    This perhaps describes their idealized self-conceptions in general, but you can look at this regulation completely in line with pragmatic, deficit-fighting, welfare-expanding concerns. These are concerns beyond "equality" and "social safety net." Just like highway speed limits are not necessarily a liberal attempt to enforce equality and uniformity.

    >But I want none of these at the expense of the greater picture of the government telling my employer what it can offer or can't offer.

    Okay. But I still don't understand why you look at the coal miner and say, yeah, I'm willing to screw the employer there. Is it because the concept of an employer paying for your gym membership is silly? Lots of employers do it.

    >My employer wants a happy employee right? Well, it's in my employers best interest to reduce stress for me, and I would be VERY happy if someone else would cover my rent on top of my compensation. We can add it to the benefits package.

    In principle, I see nothing wrong with this. I feel I should add that I'm perfectly fine with a world where most Americans did not rely on their employers for their health insurance plans - I prefer it be a public government good with the option for an increased level of private service ("luxury plans") if the individual is willing to pay a private service for it.

    But the way our world works, is if you want to stipulate minimum levels of service, you have to also have a go at employers. They're just the biggest providers of it.

    I don't think it's absurd for an employer to offer to pay for your gas or gym membership. But if my employer did sign a contract to that effect, and then tried to weasel out by defining "gym membership" to mean "membership in Cirque du Soleil" or "gas" to mean farts, I think I would have an actionable claim I could bring in a court run by a government. This is just one step further.

    ReplyDelete
  44. >This has nothing to do with rights. Either the "right" to medical care, or the "right" to birth control.It's just an attempt to regulate insurance plans.

    Yes. Yes. You are right. It is an attempt to regulate insurance plans BECAUSE the Democrats made this up to be a "right" Democrats view this as a woman's rights. And obviously, kal vachomer, if you are against someone's rights, you are evil. And that is how Democrats successfully paint the Republicans. Republicans scratch their heads and ask how the hell did a "want" become a "right"?

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/senate-defeats-amendment-to-reverse-birth-control-rule-141052713.html

    >I don't think it's absurd for an employer to offer to pay for your gas or gym membership.

    Ok. So that is the thrust of our disagreement. In a hundred years, when someone reads this, they will know where we stand.

    Vox, I love you.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Would you ever say Conservatives JUST want to deregulate a certain business? No. Of course not. The kernal attempt to deregulate comes from the principle of less government. Neither side is valueless. Each has its values and they roll from there. It's not SIMPLY an economic pragmatic decision on part of Democrats to regulate the insurance companies for birth control. It stems from an apriori value. And this is not a criticism of them, simply a description.

    ReplyDelete